$0.55 per watt from SolarCity’s record-breaking new solar panel

This site may earn affiliate commissions from the links on this page. Terms of use.

For a while there, there was a chance that solar expansion was in trouble. In the US, the federal Investment Tax Credit is set to end in 2016, which many believe will slow adoption, even as technology gets better than ever. Without an outside funder forcing solar to make good financial sense, the only way the tech could survive is if it started making that same sense all on its own. Now, Elon Musk‘s solar power venture SolarCity has taken another major step toward that goal, announcing a new solar panel product that can produce power for about $0.55 per watt.

The efficiency of the panels themselves can reach 22.5%, which makes them the most efficient residential panels ever created. On the surface, this seems to only mildly outpace the 21.5% efficiency achieved by the prior leader, SunPower. However, the whole appeal of this new SolarCity panel is its affordability, and the venerable SunPower solar cells are much more expensive than the average. We don’t yet have final pricing for these new SolarCity panels, but with the price of solar plummeting in recent years they’ve got to be fairly cheap to compete.

The announcement comes as a result of SolarCity’s acquisition of Silevo, a solar manufacturing startup that boasted a new, high efficiency panel architecture. The company calls it Triex technology, and it incorporates crystalline silicon with thin films and complex tunneling junctions for electron management. What’s important is that the technology is not physically all that different from existing silicon semiconductor structures, meaning that Silevo did not have to reinvent the wheel in order to revolutionize it.

With the acquisition of Silevo, SolarCity also became one of only four “vertically integrated” solar companies in the US, meaning that it can now handle its own business all the way from manufacturing through sales on to and installation. That will help them keep costs down as well, especially if this new technology ends up being its core, best-selling home product. SolarCity is already the largest installer in the US, and with Musk’s penchant for enormous manufacturing plants like the Gigafactory, it could make a run for manufacturing as well.

These new solar panels will be manufactured in Buffalo, NY, at a facility called Riverbend. They’re entirely products of the US (minus the raw materials), just like Tesla‘s car batteries, The company hopes that Riverbend can produce up to 10,000 panels per day, and employ something like 2,000 people in the process.

Riverbend in Buffalo, NY.

Of course, affordability is just a relative term, and whether the panels are comparatively cheap doesn’t necessarily mean you can afford them, especially without government subsidies. In that spirit, SolarCity actually wrote a blog post advising that we need to move past the idea of solar power existing only on residential rooftops. It advocates for a more diverse set of installations, like including community solar for powering modest clusters of homes.

Solar power still isn’t right for everybody, everywhere, and that will only become more true if federal subsidies dry up. But it’s becoming right for a larger and larger proportion of the country, and fairly quickly, too. With full control of the process, SolarCity can now start to control the cost per kilowatt hour directly, and SpaceX has made it clear what happens when you let Elon Musk muck with the status quo.

Tagged In

There are plenty of preproduction panels with an efficiency of 20% plus. A cost of 55 cents per watt will be high when solarcity starts producing panels in 2017. What is the story here?

brenro

If that’s the installed price it would be a huge drop from the current average.

Jason Guffey

No way that is installed price, that would be about 33% of the current installed price and that kind of drop would be huge national news.

Bryan

Sunpreme’s bifacial solar module offers up to 22.6% efficiency at a much lower price to the consumer than what the leasing companies charge. So this is nothing new. Nice try.

Mikael Murstam

How do they calculate the cost per watt, I mean doesn’t that depend on how long you own your solar cells? If there is a one time fee, then the average cost per watt would go down the longer you owned them. I don’t understand this.

ApplesOnTrees

Watt, is a measure of power, not energy. 1 Watt is 1 Joule per second. 1 Watt is 0.001 kWh per hour.

So no, cost per watt doesn’t fall with time, it remainds constant. Common misunderstanding.

Mikael Murstam

I know exactly what Watt is. I’m not talking about cost per energy, I’m talking about cost per watt. It is you who don’t understand what I mean. When you buy energy from the grid you have a constant cost per watt but how can something that is free, that comes from the sun have a price of joules per second? It doesn’t cost anything to run a solar cell. That’s where the installation cost comes in. If you have them for X years then you can calculate how much the average price per watt becomes but you can’t do that if you don’t know the time frame in the first place. Thus the average price per watt decline the longer you have them because you only pay once.

Magnus Blomberg

The price per watt (power) is not dependent on X (the time tha panels have operated) except for the fact that the panels efficiency deteriorate a bit over time.

The average price per kwh (energy not power) captured since the panels installation will fall since more and more energy is captured while the cost is constant.

Do you wish to know the actual average cost per w (power) produced apposed to the minimum cost per w ($0.55) over a period of X years? If that is the case it will depend heavily on where the panels are installed and so on.

Mikael Murstam

hmm yeah the price per watt becomes constant I confused myself haha

Magnus Blomberg

It happens to the best of us :) Just look at the comments in this thred.

fhgh

The Politics is trying to keep price per watt constant on solar panels with there antidumping regulations but that is another thing

Rosemary Hughes

You do not have a constant cost per kilowatt hour when you are on the grid. Most suppliers have the option of using a multiplier in some situations. Many use a seasonal cost adjustment.. My natural gas bill has about 5 different ways to adjust the price. I went to level billing when they announced that their minimum bill would be $15 and often in the summer I did not use $15 worth.

Phoghat

not watt, watt-hour

fhgh

yes watt-hour is the price on electricity not the price of panels
witch some people don´t some to understand here

Sterling

Cost per Watt is only on the sale price of the panel nothing more.

Bill Fortune

I think that the installed cost is high and the cost to maintain is also very high. So the costs have to be amortized (I think that the correct word) over the life of the panels, batteries and converters.
Also, there is no savings because we have to maintain the grid and the power plant capacity for when the sun don’t shine and the batteries need charging.
Note that on the average in the U.S. it only costs about 4 cents/kwh to generate and 3 cents to distribute to you meter.
Someone needs to show how many panels, batteries and other stuff is needed to get the average consumer off the grid.

Kenneth Beck

usually companies base the cost of electricity production on somewhere between a 10 and 20 year span of time. but just like batteries, they dont just die within that timeframe, they just loose efficiency at a gradual rate. Its too bad we cannot know the true decay rate of the panels ahead of time. Real world situations are almost always different than what is achieved in the lab.

b9box

It’s basically an irrelevant decline power loss even over decades almost any modern “quality” panel will not be noticeable, as long as you give a typical amount of overhead in your design. It would matter more if you are building a massive farm of panels.. but I’m talking average consumer of 2kw-6kw, you can “almost” ignore it, or maybe have to add 1-2 panels in 20-30 years if it really matters that much. So the price per watt is the price of the listed Max power point wattage of the panel at time of manufacture and test using standardized test measures, and usually even includes some extra margin. It obviously does not account for built-in microinverters, installing, endless other hardware, shipping, taxes and so on.. For someone like me that installs and builds my own off-grid systems, the way I want to shop panels is $/watt, and otherwise obviously careful inspections for quality issues. Others here did fine work of clarifying meaning of energy vs. power.. On the latter point, research and brand reputation also have to be considered, although many quality manufacturers are no longer in business, plenty of great panels out there compared to junk in my experience. Above all, I don’t care about efficiency, VERY MUCH overstated at this stage of the game.. Most of us have all the space we need, although efficiency obviously impacts the cost per watt, too often people are concerned about the wrong details or for the wrong reasons. The most efficient is rarely the best price per watt by the time panel gets to market (It’s usually higher!) There are endless ways to implement a PV solar power system (off-grid, grid-tie, and many variations..) Shopping “panel price” is only one part of the calculation and price per watt is the first consideration I’d say, best place to start, at least until panels costs drop to a point where it is much less a significant cost to the overall system. As long as you are not launching your panels into orbit, have space to put them, panels that are significantly less efficient will surely be you best price per watt. Bottom line: You have to shop each component price and specs that match the needs of your “entire system design”, budget and availability of various parts. One last point, the MPP (max power point) specified can change radically over time due to many systemic issues, which can cause a “perceived” loss of panel power, when actually the system itself needs attention. Solar power system design is an advanced subject. Too many people are jumping into the business, promising specs that cannot be assured over time (without knowing more detail of what they are doing, and some amount of maintenance, even failure to do your tree-trimming, or a diode failing in one panel can cause the whole system to radically drop in power. Buyer beware. Ignorance is NOT-Bliss. This has caused a bad reputation on the industry as a whole.

Phoghat

because science

Matthew Uddenberg

holy moly, cost per watt refers to the capacity of the system. Cost per w*h refers to the installation cost divided by the w*h produced over the life time of the panel.

newnodm

It is simply the cost of the panel divided by by the rated output in watts.

Cost per kilowatt hour would include the hours of use. This is normally evaluated on a system, not panel perspective.

Bryan

You’re confusing watts with kilowatt hours.

moonpie

When you buy power you are NOT buying a watt or a kilowatt. You are buying kilowatt hours KWH.

Mike

You’re actually buying energy — not power. The only time you really pay for “power” is on time scales of a month or more.

moonpie

55 cents would be an incredibly low price per watt. I there is no way SolarCity will be selling panels in a year or so for that price.

newnodm

Cost is not price

WeaponZero

The solar panels will be produced 2016Q1, And 55 cents per watt is actually pretty good for such high efficiency panels.

newnodm

The panels produced from a test production line will not be 55 cents per watt. 55 dollars per watt is closer.

WeaponZero

I think you are underestimating the SIZE of the pilot facility. It is called a pilot facility because compared to the 1 GW facility itself it is small. But standing at 100 MW, the pilot facility in itself is pretty large.

So really, stop hating. It ain’t 55 dollars per watt. It is 55 cents per watt. The price will continue to go down as they increase the facility to full capacity.

newnodm

Again, the cost of panels from the “pilot” facility is not 55 cents per watt. The future cost of panels is projected at 55 cents per watt. Those future panels will be compared to other companies future panels.
Only fanboys and employees get excited by a solar manufacturers announcements concerning unreleased products.

WeaponZero

Again you are wrong, the current cost is 0.55 per watt. Once the factory is in full production by 2017 (1 GW), the estimate is they will be at 0.50 per watt. They will also have 24% efficiency panels.

Mark J

24% is literally impossible. It is beyond the theoretical limit of Si based solar cells.

Today it´s almost impossible to find a 100 watt solar panel on Ebay under
120 dollar and that is 120 cent/watt

gbigsangle

The story is cheerleading in lieu of subsidy cuts. You will see more of these fluff pieces as that approaches.

ButtBoyBarryO

that is still 10 times more expnsive than natural gas

dc

No it isnt. Buying energy from a power company and producing your own are totally different animals. I’m living in Alaska. I have to buy my own gas for the furnace. It’s actually quite expensive.

Bill Fortune

What does you gas furnace have to do with producing electricity ?

DecksUpMySleeve

Energy costs?

Bill Fortune

Not sure what the cost of power plant natural gas is in your area. Propane, if that is what you use, is more expensive.
Generally, with pollution regulations, nat. gas is the least expensive alternatives, except old (existing) nuclear.

DecksUpMySleeve

Nat gas is disqualified, cost aside it’s still another high carbon power source and raises the likelihood of water contamination and Earthquake occurrence while creating ground cavities.

Bill Fortune

Disqualified ???
Then promote Transatomic Power Inc. or go without.

DecksUpMySleeve

It’s not like Nat gas is going to halt cause I said it’s not up to my standards, little is. It overtook coal a couple months ago, NG is huge, I just personally disqualify it from my use, and I’m near nothing in the scheme of things atm.

Ivor O’Connor

Go without. No need for them now that wind and solar are mature.

Ivor O’Connor

I believe wind in certain areas is far cheaper than existing nuclear and natural gas.

dc

I’m pointing out the obvious, that solar allows you to have your own personal source of power and for that you pay a premium. But it’s cheaper than running a home generator.

Of course it’s not just for your home. There are whole towns in Alaska run off local diesel plants. I’d wager that wind would be cheaper for most of them (and yes in some of those towns the wind always blows). Now that’s not on topic for solar, but the point remains that nature gas is not always the cheapest energy source, especially when it has to be shipped in.

WGaskill

You’ve evidently never heard of a heat pump.

Bill Fortune

I’ll forgive you just this once. I AM IN THE GEOTHERMAL HEAT PUMP BUSINESS, or was/ have been.
wfortuneco.com and NHcleanenergy.com
People can’t afford heat pumps because the approx. 80% tax on electricity here in NH. The Democrats what to raise the tax and the Republicans won’t lower it because they are afraid the the “government will loose money”.
I have made many statements on these sites and it’s like NO one has seen them. Apparently I am addressing one person at a time and it’s not getting the message to the general public. I need help.

David Niose’s article “anti-intellectualism” is way off base; not even in the ball park.
It’s dysfunctional families and a host of issues that leave children abandoned, neglected and isolated. Extreme narcissism.
Bill Fortune, Founder, Fathers United for Equal Justice, 1971.

Phoghat

yeah, right

Bill Fortune

It’s because they can’t afford the cost of electricity; there is not enough savings between electricity and other heat sources, except wood, if you have your own or maybe a pellet stove. It’s the 80% tax on electricity. The gov. will raise taxes as much as they can and the politicians will buy votes with the tax, buy giving the money to special interests.

Nonsense, as a general statement like this. You are not even in the same ballpark.

First of all, it highly depends on the price of gas you use for electricity generation. In the US, gas is currently very cheap (not for very long, export infrastructure is building out quickly). In the EU, gas is VERY expensive and mostly comes from Russia. (huge hidden political cost too).

As the trends go, gas is quickly becoming very expensive compared to wind and solar even without them paying for their huge hidden/externalized costs (serious human healt issues for coal + generally wrecking the climate). In a lot of regions gas is already limited to peaker roles, but only as long as better/cheaper electric storage systems are put in place (Tesla Powerblock, vanadium flow batteries…etc) which can hadle the variability of solar/wind.

Since unprecedented amount of reasearch and deployment money is going into electric storage systems, we can safely say that gas will face a very diminished role in our energy future (maybe in handling seasonal variability in the form of bio-gas).

The Shambolic Skeptic

In Europe, gas is pegged to oil prices. As crude become more / less expensive gas prices move in step. The US has an independent gas market – prices rise and fall based on supply / demand dynamics. Two very different pricing mechanisms.

Erkko

The reason being that Russia – the biggest supplier of gas – produces both oil and gas from the same fields. If they want to sell the gas only, they get a surplus of oil, so the prices follow. That’s why Gazprom has spent so much money lobbying and succeeding in getting European governments to ban shale gas extraction. The “little green men” throughout Europe do not appear only in military uniform.

WeaponZero

lol, you can’t tell the difference between power and energy. The talk here is about the cost per watt aka a solar panel that produces a certain amount of watts of power, not watt hours which is how much you pay your utility on.

If you want a conversion to watt hours. 55 cents / (25*5*365). That is about 0.0012 cents per watt hour. or 1.2 cents per kwh.

Now of course with installation, inverters, markup and other stuff it will cost about 4X that. For a total of 4.82 cents per kwh. How does that compare with natural gas? Natural gas is 6.4 cents per kwh.

Erkko

Natural gas is that much supplied to your house in retail price with distribution costs and profits rolled in, whereas where gas is cheap, in places like California, it’s actually between 1-2 cents out of the pipeline and 3-4 cents turned to electricity on the grid before distribution.

You have to compare that to solar prices, and if solar is 4.8 cents before distribution, it’s not competitive. Hence why it’s subsidized to hell and back.

WeaponZero

Except you are ignoring other costs for natural gas such as capital costs and maintenance costs.

Erkko

Nope. Electricity from natural gas costs about 3-4 cents/kWh to produce – of course it depends on where and how you produce it. Load following plants are naturally more expensive.

The figures are in dollars per thousand cubic feet, and 1000 cu-ft of gas is normalized to 99 kWh for statistics purposes, so the price is pretty much directly in cents per kWh. Cheapest last year was Ohio at 2.42 c/kWh.

Gas is really that cheap. What often makes it expensive is the fact that the powerplants only run part-time due to renewable energy on the grid, which increases their capital and maintenance costs relative to the energy they produce. That usually happens when the fuel is very cheap and the majority of cost is from the machinery, such as in the case of nuclear power or CCGT – halving the running time (also known as capacity factor) almost doubles the cost per kWh.

That side effect is the reason why utilities don’t really like solar power and won’t build it unless the governments are paying them for it.

Erkko

I am not ignoring it – it appears the moderation has removed the message where I proved that. Let’s try again.

actually living in Alaska does that white snow help your solar collection or hinder it , the latter id assume.

The Mogget

From what I hear, most solar panels work better in colder temperatures. The increased light reflected from snow does also help… as long as the snow isn’t covering the panels.

The big downside is the fewer hours of light, especially in the middle of winter. That one thing screws it all up.

moonpie

Heat doesn’t affect panels much at all, but they work best at cooler temps. My winter output is 1/2 or less of my summer output. Reasons are:
1. less sunlight
2. lower angle of the sun
3. Far more cloudy weather (in my area)
4. Some snow cover issues
Ambient light does help solar production – reflection off of snow and even reflection off the edges of clouds.

Sam Doohan

For today maybe other energy sources are cheaper but that’s not going to last forever. Power plants take years to build and bring on stream and if we wait until fossil fuel prices sky-rocket then it’ll be far too late to start building then. We’re building infrastructure to take us into the coming decades, not just picking whatever is cheapest on today’s markets.

Sure did. Twice. Only saved money if you factored in rate increase and dont amortize panels.

Sean Konover

.55 per watt must be the cost to make a panel because energy is measured in Kilo Watt Hours and .55 per kWh would be crazy high. 0.55 per watt must be the production cost because that price is really low. Right now, cheap inefficient panels, (not SC panels) are about $0.90 per watt or greater. Any questions about solar for your home email me skonover@solarcity.com

Bryan

No they’re not. Panels that offer a high PTC to STC performance ratio that means a whole lot more than efficiency when it comes to performance are being manufactured for less than .45 cents per watt and are being sold to dealers for about .63 cents per watt which yields a cost of less than 7 cents per kWh. 7 cents per kWh is about half of what SolarCity charges its customers.

Jacob

Sean works at SolarCity it seems.

Sean Konover

Show me where there is a msrp for a panel at .63 per watt and are you talking about a 100% tsrf when doing your kWh calculations, and what inverter are you using to make those cost calculation? I think you are just throwing numbers out there.

moonpie

It simply means you can buy a 100 watt panel for $55. It’s the cost of buying a product – a panel, nothing more.

DeBee Corley

I read $.55 per watt. That means to me, that I can buy panels that will produce 2000 watts for $1100.

2 KWh 10 hours a day for 30 days is 600 KWh. In California, PG&E charged me $.55 per KWh after 1000 KWh. If my arithmetic is correct, that’s $330 a month.

Reading the other comments, either I’m deranged, or, there is a huge misunderstanding.

Boris

I read $.55 per watt.

Well, it’s not $.55 installed , I don’t think.

moonpie

Installed? NO WAY.

Cheap Chinese panels cost about $1 a watt now. SolarCity panels cost much more. The $.55 from SolarCity in a year or so? I don’t believe it.

Now panels are only about 1/2 the parts cost of a solar system. Then many companies like SolarCity charge way too much to install them.

Nobody gets 10 hours of peak sunshine per day on average in the continental U.S. Try 6.6 hours in parts of California.

DecksUpMySleeve

You can get >7.2 in the exact right area/summer solstice of the SW US with a Dual-Axis tracker.
You get an average of 6.4hrs a day, and that’s with some days being cloudy.
Though with the sun being in a little trough for the next 18 years there will be a bit less than the average(more cloud cover).

Bryan

Trackers are a waste of money for what little extra power that they extract. They cost too much and just when you get anywhere near a return on investment, they break. I’ve sold trackers for over 17 years and have always recommended against them. Your money is better spent on the purchase of more modules in a fixed mount.

Bryan — One interesting variation is Alaska. The summer sun moves through nearly 270 degrees (or more further north). However, no one there wants more stuff that can break, so the lodge I visit every year has their panels on poles with a handle sticking out to the side. Staff members “bump” the panels along as they go by on one errand or another. Works out great!

DecksUpMySleeve

Depends on the panel. I had a good deal on triple-junctions awhile ago and a single axis would have been worth it. Trackers are a multiplier, you need the right initial sum for viability.
Also there is the case of longevity, aluminum tracker, double glassed panels, sheilded wires, correctly designed system could pay off for near 100 years.

Hurrya

You can build a single tracker for around $100 and trackers can result in 133% improvement for a single axis tracker, I can provide youtube videos to explain the system. Dual axis can be implemented by using a ground mounting system with variable angles. Trackers might be a waste of time for people who can afford to buy more panels but for a large majority of the world population they are an excellent way go getting more with less.

Erkko

A more useful figure than hours of sunshine is the Capacity Factor, which varies with latitude. For a fixed solar panel in California, the average is roughly 0.15 with variations whereas the same in northern Germany is about 0.07

That means you take the nominal output of the panel and multiply by the capacity factor, and you get the output power averaged over a typical year.

For a 1 kW panel in California, it means you get on average 150 Watts. It’s about 1.3 MWh per kW per year. Trackers increase this figure by about 30% but they’re mechanically fragile and generally not worth the money.

Some of the places I visit in Alaska have their panels mounted on large poles with a “handle” that can be bumped around, so employees keep nudging them forward during the course of the day to track the sun. Works pretty well (and the sun moves around 270 degrees up there, so tracking is really important) and very sturdy. Of course, requires having people walking by the panels, and wouldn’t work for roof-mounted panels.

warcaster

It’s the cost of the panel, not the cost of consumption. That would be measured in KWh.

What it means is that when you BUY 1,000 Watt solar panel, it costs you $550. If you need a 10 KW system, that’s $5,500.

Then you spread that cost over 20-30 years or whatever the panels are supposed to last, and do the math how much it will cost you in $/electricity consumed.

ApplesOnTrees

Watt is a measure of power, not energy. If you have a 1000 Watt panel, you collect 1kWh of energy per hour.

Common misunderstanding.

moonpie

1st that $.55 a watt for complete panels is bull. You will not see that price in a little over a year, certainly not from SolarCity. But yes it is just the price (per watt) for a panel.

Just a note: a quick and dirty way to calculate power from solar is to use 5 hours a day x max output. And you have KWH confused with KW. Your calculation should be: 2kw x 5 x 30= 300kwh. It a quick ballpark number.

Wayne Graham

you wont get 10 hours a day. the peak efficiency usually is only 6 hours depending how close to the equator you are.

DeBee — As Wayne mentioned, 6 hours is a better estimate than 10, even in California. That assumes panels are pretty-well aimed (remember the $.55 is only during peak hours, so you need to make sure the panels are aligned to match up with the utility’s definition of peak). Then there is also “slippage” getting from DC watts at the panel, and through the charge controllers, inverter, and (if applicable) grid-tie interface. Not to discourage you (we have panels in California, and have for 15 years), but the economics aren’t as awesome as it might at first appear.

DecksUpMySleeve

That’s basically set to compete with chinese, good for them, I’m sure the quality and product lifespan is slightly better too.
What I don’t understand, why doesn’t SolarCity cut out the middle man and just got into utility scale power production themselves. You can easily save 10 cents per watt by buying some land in the SouthWest US and undercut the grid and maybe cut a deal for a portion of their subsidies.
Another thing I can’t comprehend, why are we still calculating the cost per watt over 20-25 years use. Solarcity gaurentees 70% max capacity at 40 years, and most will easily run til 80 years before needing to replace the laminent covering on the panels themselves.
If you calculated for 40 years instead the price is more like 30 cents per watt.

Bryan

No commercially prepared PV module will last 80 years. And you’re confusing watts with kilowatt hours. Watts is not a function of time.

For utility-scale power there are other, more efficient, technologies. For example the Ivanpah solar “lake” (or at least that’s what it looks like when you drive by). Huge array of mirrors focused up onto three towers that use the heat. I think even the utility-scale projects that do use panels use them in conjunction with mirrors or other concentrating technology. So the SolarCity panels, AFAIK, are mostly useful to home and small commercial installations.

DecksUpMySleeve

Not a fan of CSP, fries anything which flies through it and relys on water.
Also don’t like utility centralized power. At least with PV power it drops the price for the rest of us in eventuality.

Well, I like the Mojave, and Ivanpah is ugly, so I’m with you on rooftop solar having a lot of benefits. We’ve had panels on our house for 15 years now. After teething pains with the inverter & grid-tie, its been trouble free (although the panels would be a lot cheaper to buy now!)

Boris

What I don’t understand, why doesn’t SolarCity cut out the middle man and just got into utility scale power production themselves.

Yup. Build a 10MW power station for $5,500,000, and retire to Qatar.

Ivor O’Connor

We don’t know how long panels will last yet. And most fail currently because their containers and wiring are not able to be exposed to the elements for decades. Nobody has experience making containers that last in this plastic disposable world.

DecksUpMySleeve

Yeah, I mention double glassed panels a lot with sheilded/armored wiring and anti corrosive housings. They can easily surpass 80 this way. Also SolarCity already guarantees >70% at 40 years, yet we still calc for 25 years where the >80% warranty is upheld.

moonpie

Several articles have been published regarding panel life span. They stated the panels that are now over 20 years and even 30 years are working and performing far better than expected. Lower failure rater and higher efficiency then expected. These reports prompted a few manufactures of panels to extend their warranties.

Ivor O’Connor

Sure. However many have failed because of casings and wiring. The solar panels are only as strong as their weakest link. Furthermore the three or four that are still in existence since the 1970s, remember solar was a novelty back then, produced so little wattage they have little to do with how they are made now.

moonpie

I’m sure there are failures too. Manufacturing new products has a learning curve inherent in the process.

Id agree 1970s panels would not be valid but panels approaching 20 and 30 years are well past the 70s.

The important thing is the actual solar cells in those panels show amazing longevity. Wiring etc is a very fixable issue and the longer warranties reflect that too.

thegrandvizier

Correct me if I am wrong, but don’t fossil fuel exploration companies still receive tax benefits that subsidize their activities?
There are dozens of examples of taxes and tax credits being used to underwrite fledgling industries. Why should solar or wind be treated differently? Let me answer my own question: the controlling interests in preserving the status quo are lobbying against it. Oil and gas companies don’t want anyone upsetting the apple cart.

Bill Fortune

So get your fingers out of where the sun don’t shine and get the next generation of power plants built that don’t need subsidies and don’t need fossil fuels !
If you are female, you are in control and if as cute as your picture your rule the world !
And recycle trash into synthetic products that will also reduce the need for fossil fuels (see NHcleanenergy.com)

thegrandvizier

I will disregard your first sentence as being unnecessary. I am not opposed to the new type of molten salt nuclear plant. I was merely noting that subsidies have come to be acceptable to the fossil fuel industry yet seem to be resented for the renewable industry.

Bill Fortune

Subsidies are given for EVERYTHING ! not just the fossil fuel industry.
And I restate my first sentence. Being opposed or not opposed is passive and doesn’t accomplish anything; action is needed. What are you doing other than bitching ???

thegrandvizier

I don’t know if you have anger issues are just find yourself to be worthy of pompous condescension. You know nothing about me. What would you like me to do on an online discussion. I voiced my opinion. I don’t have to prove a freaking thing to you. I know what I’ve done and I’m proud of it. I don’t know how old you are but I’m 65 and I’ve been politically and environmentally active since college. With that said go f yourself.

Bill Fortune

I, and others know about you based upon what you write.
And just what have you accomplished that you can “be proud of’?
Take note that it’s the under developed personalities, like 10 yr. olds, that get angry when they are caught. So until you can tell people on this site (not just me) what you have done to replace fossil fuels, then we know that you have done nothing !

Dennis

Watts gives us nothing. You can’t compare with what the power company charges using watts. What’s the Kilowatt-hrs number?

Boris

The power company charges for what you use. With your own generation, you only use some of it. The rest you store (if you got batteries), sell back to the power companies, or just waste. The numbers are different in each scenario.

Dennis

I’m a practicing solar engineer Boris, you don’t have a leg to stand on. Look at Bill’s comment below. He knows his unit analysis.

I could talk about how Jimmy Carter passed legislation forcing power companies to accept power you generate at the same rate they charge – basically allowing you to make your meter run backward, but I don’t think you are ready for that.

Bottom line, you consume watts(or kilowatt)-hours. Instantaneous watts, just watts says nothing about power consumption no matter what your application. For ANY application you measure power in how many watts you use over so much TIME. It must be Kwatt-hrs, or horsepower-seconds, or anything like that, and quit trying to sound like you know something when you don’t, it belittles you. End of sermon.

DecksUpMySleeve

Not very bright, yet pompous..
Gross.

Dennis

Maybe pompous. But I didn’t get that way until Boris chimes in like an expert, without a clue. I deal with enough clueless know-it-alls, and he hit a nerve. And by “Not very bright” do you mean I’m wrong, or are you just name calling? I’m always willing to be enlightened. By the way I saw you made the same math mistake in your comment. Maybe you took my comment to Boris personally.

DecksUpMySleeve

I’m not sure what mistake you think I’ve made. Stating watts instead of kWh?
Watts is the output rating, a panel doesn’t have a given kWh because solar radiance is regional. You’ll get 2300hrs annually in the SW US, 1500 in the mid-north, and 2800hrs in the right part of Chiles coast.
A given kWh is 1,000 watts over the span of hour, panels go by cent per watt for their output under radiance, if it’s a 250watt panel hit perfectly for an hour with no loss(unlikely) it’d be .25kWhs of energy. If inverted and fed to a battery you’re looking at 85% that at most for output from the battery. Therein a variable throughput when demand is high saves the batteries transition loss as well as decay of it’s cycle lifespan.
I’m fairly clear on how the whole system works, been reading about and in some cases using renewables for about a decade. I know most of the advances from various concentrators and inverters to efficiency gains of PV, perovskite, thinfilm, nanotube, spray-ons, semi-translucents, graphene nanoribbons, tri and quad junction, etc etc.
I read it all. Same goes for batteries, fuel cells, wind turbines, thermal recapture energy, blah blah blah.
This site though is for curiousity towards microarchitectures, data storage, and cyber security usually.

Boris

Sorry, I misread your question – thought you were asking something that would actually make sense.

What’s the Kilowatt-hrs number?

This is an article about a new type of solar panel. A panel doesn’t have a “kilowatt-hrs number” spec, only wattage. The panel makers can’t give you the number you’re asking.

For ANY application you measure power in how many watts you use over so much TIME.

Power is measured in watts. Watt -hour is a unit of energy, not power. Look it up, mr. solar engineer.

“Published on Nov 27, 2014
We all count on experts, but should we trust them? Turns out, the more certain their pronouncements, the more likely they are to be wrong.
The Trouble with Experts, reminds us, we are all addicted to experts. They tell us what to eat, how to vote, raise our kids, fix our homes, buy our wines, interpret political events and, until recently, choose the right stocks. They’re all over the media telling us what to think, because there’s just too much information for us to sort out ourselves. So we often cede our own opinions to “them” because, well … they’re experts, so they know better than us. Or do they?….”

Bill Fortune

Good point ! Sometimes even engineers use terms too loosely.

Dennis

That’s right Boris, watts does not equal watt-hrs, so “The numbers are different in each scenario.” will get you in trouble every time.

Boris

Yes, the numbers are different in the three scenarios I described. The amount of energy (in watt-hours) you can get from a set of solar panels is different in these three scenarios:

1. You are set up to sell the energy back to the utility company
2. You are set up to store the energy in a battery pack (so the pack capacity, again in watt-hours, is a limiting factor);
3. You aren’t set up for either, and don’t use the excessive power.

Please let me know if I need to type slower or hy-phen-ate the longer words.

Dennis

Let the experts be sarcastic, Boris, you’re no good at it.

Boris

I guess you did get me going. Look, it’s just an internet forum. There are no winners in a p$ssing contest, only people with more or less splatter.

I’m not an expert in your field, never said or implied I was.

Just remember that people outside your field can have brains too.

Good day to you, Dennis.

Bill Fortune

On average it only costs 7-8 cents/kwh to deliver electricity to your meter, most of the other charges are the result of Congress and state Legislators meddling and taxing.
So solar is still the most expensive and will soon be even more obsolete after the new power plants come on line.

Phobos

No to mention you still need to clean the panels or they will lose efficiency. Hippy technology is not the way to go, we need nuclear.

Bill Fortune

NOT the same type of reactors that we now have ! Please, please read about Transatomic Power Inc and get the word out !

Mahmud

I agree we ought to invest in new nuclear tech and do it heavily and rapidly (next 15 years) so at least 40-50% of the world is nuclear.

However dissing solar is not good either. It should be given subsidies and its tech invested in so the world is a fifth solar soon. I think it should be done rapidly as well.

Also energy efficiency….people and corporations ought to be fined for waste.

Bill Fortune

Don’ t need solar if people get their fingers out of their eyes !

I contend that if another Rickover is tasked to build Transatomic Power’s reactor it can be built in 3 years. the PhD’s will want to study if for the next 100 years and the Nuclear Reg. Commission already says that they need more money, so that would be another 50 years. So, if we put our minds to it the whole world would go nuclear and at a lower cost than solar.

Mahmud

Well you see, that is not about to happen considering the ridiculous amount of time it takes to get a nuke reactor running. Now I wish that was not the case but it is.

So we go with solar

Bill Fortune

The new designs can be build in a factory and wouldn’t take long to build and install. We need to demand that the bureaucrats get out of the way, like when Rickover built the first reactor for the Navy.

Not when you’re intelligent enough to understand the full cost of fossils.
Mining pollution, ecological disasters, medical bills, climate effects on crops, reduced stability to the future of all Earthlings.
Shortsighted economics is only for the lamen.
At what cost?
A heightened probability of the collapse of the North Atlantic Gyre over the next hundred years causing a mini ice age via traditionalistic monopoly. Genius!
Derp.

Bill Fortune

I agree. On the other hand I contend that we DON’T NEED ANY FOSSIL FUELS TO PRODUCE ELECTRICITY ! See my comments to Phobos. People just need to get their fingers out of their eyes and see.

Bill Fortune

and there are other pollution problems with solar.

DecksUpMySleeve

But when you consider they may run over 60 years they’re fairly negated. Actually they’re usually equalized in under 8 years.

Bill Fortune

What about storage and it’s pollution problems and I can’t imagine that batteries will last that long.

DecksUpMySleeve

Well vanadium flow batteries will(50,000cycles) but those are pricey as all hell lol
Li-ion needs better anodes(Aquion’s AHI batteries also are in contention) but with proper cycling, maybe 60-70% depth max with the right temp in the low 60s F and attempted idles at 40% capacity can last about 10 years. And by then the next gen of lower cost lower density flow batteries should be coming about. There is a great deal of things in the works which will be able to replace the first batch with something much more permanent.

Bill Fortune

I contend that if another Rickover is tasked to build Transatomic Power’s reactor it can be built in 3 years. the PhD’s will want to study if for the next 100 years and the Nuclear Reg. Commission already says that they need more money, so that would be another 50 years. So, if we put our minds to it the whole world would go nuclear and at a lower cost than solar.

DecksUpMySleeve

If they’d build nuclear upon gel or springs and not near Earthquakes or floodplain zones safely, sure. The current pattern is not as such.
Also I’d rather PV or something similarly self reliantly applicable take off so generation decentralizes. We have too few checks and balances of power these days. The corporate overlords could put our balls in a vice down the line, it’d be nice to have a means of self-sufficiency.

Towns like Mackinac City with a couple of their own windmills is pretty cool. Wind farms, I’m not so sure.

Bill Fortune

It clear that you haven’t studied the molten salt reactors designed by Transatomic Power/MIT. spills freeze ! Become solids. No more “melt-downs”.

DecksUpMySleeve

Actually I have, thorium etc. A couple years ago, there is basically an expelling valve to the reaction. Transatomic just wasn’t ringing a bell I guess. I don’t think the global community would pay for the transformation though. Has any country successful built one yet, haven’t kept up on it. I read a website and watched a TED talk about it at some point in 2013 I think.

Folatt

55 cents/watt is not the same thing as 7-8 cents/kwh.

PV is at 12.5 cents/kwh with 72 cents/watt.

Bill Fortune

Correct, thanks. The cost of storage is very expensive.

DecksUpMySleeve

Current costs ;)
But then again with a more efficient abode the required wattage can be 1/3rd what’s common.
Housing should only have one floor above ground, with higher grade insultation. Better thermal sink designs, the list goes on.
In a few years I’ll set a good example with a little luck.

Folatt

Indeed. Current cost only, but together with storage it’s still above gas peakers currently and those are the first in line of the fossil fuels to be outphased by solar, though it’s not by much anymore.

thx1138v2

$0.55 per Watt versus $0.16 per kiloWatt or $0.00016 per Watt? I’ll have to think about that for quite some time. Not.

Joel Detrow

It’s $0.55 per watt in terms of generation capacity of the panel. That means a panel capable of generating up to 1000 watts would be $550. If you stuck that on a rooftop which gets 6 hours of direct sunlight every single day, it would probably generate (in very rough terms here) 3-4 kilowatt hours. Even if the total cost of grid electricity was $0.10 per kWh, you’re still talking less than 5 years to repay the full cost of grid electricity that was provided by the panel (5 years would generate over $600 worth of electricity).

Conversion, storage, and cloudy days will cause some losses, but the time period to repay the investment is still far less than the life of the panel. That’s why this is a big deal.

Bill Fortune

Problem is that the cost to produce electricity is only about 4 cents/kwh and 4 to deliver it. With the new reactors I estimate that the cost can be 2 cents.
And if too many solar installs will mean that the Government will lose $$$ and even the Republicans can’t accept that, so they will have to raise taxes.

dc

Musk is the Emperor of Mankind… only real Sci Fi nerds will get that one.

Donahoe Isevil

And what are the other costs?

If you live in a incorporated city with regulations and such that means hiring an engineer to see if your roof can support the weight and if not a plan to reinforce the roof.

Permits.

Contractors.

If you live in a area with snow what is your plan to clear the snow off the panels. What is your plan to remove the snow from the ground after its off the panels assuming its in area you need to remove it from such as a driveway.

Insurance & Liability costs.

Electrician – they don’t work cheap.

Fees your power company may add. After all they have laid out huge sums for their power grid over the years and continued maintenance so why should you get to use it for free?

The cost of the panels is only a small part of the equation so until they develop solar paint it remains a toy for wealthy people who will likely never recover the cost of installation over buying electricity from their power company.

Bill Fortune

RIGHT ON ! Now people will have to go to a shrink, because you made their heads explode !

Bryan

Efficiency is practically meaningless when it comes to power production in the real world. A high efficiency 360 Watt panel produces the sames 360 Watts as a 360 Watt low efficiency solar panel. The only real difference is the physical footprint. And in most net metered systems, you’re only allowed install up to 100% of your usage anyway, so having a solar module with a smaller footprint is again meaningless in most cases. What really matter is a panel’s PTC to STC performance ratio, not efficiency.

And if you’re going to pay a much higher price in the end for that high efficiency solar panel and you will with a solar lease or PPA, then why choose a higher efficiency solar panel, only to save a few square feet on your roof?

It’s much smarter to consider price, performance and reliability as a whole if you want the best return on your solar investment, not just efficiency.

Bryan

Their cost has very little to do with what they will charge to consumer. Solar leases and PPAs are two of the most expensive ways to have solar on your home. (At least twice as expensive when compared to an outright purchase of a system). Today, pricing has dropped so low that a zero to little maintenance, average sized 4.75 kW grid tie solar system that will produce up to 600 kWh per month with only 5 hours of peak sunshine per day can now be easily purchased for less than $2.05 a watt after applying the tax credit or less than $9,6000 which is less than 7 cents per kilowatt hour.

Bill Fortune

What to do when the sun don’t shine ? Did you include the cost of storage and paying the Utility to “stand-by” when the sun don’t shine. ?

Bryan

Why do you need storage?. And why would you need to pay a utility to be on standby? You obviously have never heard of net metering have you?

Bill Fortune

net metering means that you still have to be connected to the grid. They have to purchase your power, often when they don’t need it. They don’t store it so they have to shut down other power plants and restart them when the sun don’t shine. They still have to provide capacity, transformers and lines so you will have power at night. The bottom line is that the only people making money are those that get $ from the stupid taxpayers.

moonpie

You seriously wrote that juvenile post?

I included all costs when I installed my system. Who would not?

My DIY system will be paid off in 3 years then expect 20+ year of nearly free power. Oh, I sell energy credits too so my yearly bill is about $0.

I hope you don’t think your post was clever or intelligent in anyway.

Bill Fortune

So, I’m only a juvenile, so show me the numbers.
Your 3 KW system provides power for 6 1/2 hrs. / day if you live in the S.W. (according to others here). That’s 3 x 6.5 or 19.5 KWH/ day x 0.07 $/ KWH if purchased from most utilities. 19.5 x $ 0.07 = $ 1.37/day. For 365 day/yr. is 1.37 x 365 = about $ 500/ yr.
And you say that you can pay for your installed price of $8000. in three years ???

I’m not disputing your math, but just to add some perspective, here in Northern California, utility-company power runs $.13-$.15 or more flat rate, and ranges from $.10-$.55 if you go to time of use. So a residential solar system can sell (or offset) power at $.55/Kwh during the day (it’s peak time as well as the most expensive). I’m not claiming that is some sort of economic ideal or norm, just that the payback can get a lot shorter if you’re earning $.55 instead of $.07.

D Patton

Bryan, while I agree with you that for best overall savings owned residential solar is often the most bang for your buck, you can’t seriously believe that it is the best solution for everyone, can you? I sense a hostility from you towards SolarCity and solar PPA and lease programs in general. I would say that if a homeowner has the financial resources to buy a system outright AND is confident they will be living in their home for 12-15+ years then owned solar will be their best option. Or, if they finance the system and pay off the loan in a short amount of time and will be in their home for the duration it is also likely a better option than 3rd party owned solar. However, if like many people in this country you simply do not have the resources or are not confident that you will be in your house for the long haul then owned solar may be an unwise investment or even unobtainable. For those people I believe PPAs and leases can offer a great opportunity to adopt solar and reduce energy costs. Also, isn’t it true that without solar financing options like SolarCity’s PPAs and leases driving down the costs of solar tech, folks like you would still be selling systems at MUCH higher prices. Please, correct me if I am wrong, but it is my understanding that before solar leases and PPAs were available component prices were much, much higher.

Bryan

This module is bifacial. So is that 22.04% with both the front and backside illuminated or just the front side. Why was this not mentioned?

If both sides are illuminated, the amount of light hitting it doubles and the amount of energy it produces doubles. Efficiency is energy made usable divided by energy received. The efficiency will be the same no matter what the illumination.

Bryan

Wrong sdmitch16. The higher the efficiency, the smaller the active surface area that is needed to produce the same amount of energy.

So if this module is using both sides of it’s bifacial design during testing, then they are using more active area to achieve this higher efficiency rating.

Both sides of a solar module cannot be illuminated with the same intensity because we only have one sun the last time I checked so you can only illuminate the backside of the module with reflected energy.

The intensity of that illumination will depend on the reflectivity of the material on the roof on ground’s surface, so the output of the module will never be double the rated output of the bifacial module’s nameplate rating even when mirrors are used. Most bifacial module designs only claim up to a 20% boost in output in real world applications.

If they are using artificial illumination to illuminate both the front side and back side of this bifacial (double sided) module in their third party tests to reach 22.04%, then this is not a fair comparison to standard mono facial modules like Sunpower in real world applications. If that is the case, then they should be saying “up to” 22.04% efficiency not an absolute 22.04%, because roof and ground surface reflectivity will differ at each installation site.

They’re not talking about how much energy it’s producing. They’re talking about it’s efficiency.
You are right about your later point. A solar cell that takes energy from both directions will be rated more highly than it should since the sun only shines from one direction.

Boris

Both sides of a solar module cannot be illuminated with the same intensity because we only have one sun the last time I checked so you can only illuminate the backside of the module with reflected energy.

Well, in a lab, you could illuminate the backside with two or three or ten mirrors ;)
Not in any reasonable real-life setup though.

D Patton

I do not know enough about solar module manufacturing to speak about the new SolaCity mods. I will say I think it’s pretty damn cool they will be manufactured in the USA and at a cost that is at least comparable if not less expensive than overseas. Regarding solar/wind in general, IMO the argument that renewables are tax hogs and net metering is going to put the big investor owned utilities in the poor house is bull. The US EIA itself shows that U.S. tax subsidies benefit the gas industry at approx the same levels in dollars spent as the solar industry. Net metering is also a fair program when you look past the utility company and solar industry jargon and do a thorough cost/benefit analysis of all costs associated and revenues realized (pure financial analysis, health considerations, carbon offset/environmental impacts, etc..). There is no one right answer to our future energy needs and those that say renewables are simply too costly in pure $ cost per kWh are missing the big picture.

Ivor O’Connor

You have been able to buy panels for 40 cents a watt for about a couple of years now. So SolarCity will be about 15 cents a watt more expensive than the competition when they do come out. Furthermore SolarCity is one of the most expensive solar companies if not most expensive on the market. Great company though if you don’t know squat and want the job done right and be confident it will last for 30+ years.

You can get standard modules (say 280 watts or less) at .55 or better these days. You cannot get high efficiency modules say 300 watts or better at that price – Sunpower is still over a $1.00 per watt to the consumer. So, this will be a hard slog for them and SPWR will need to partner up with an install team to survive. The second issue is other costs will need to come down in order to help negate the ITC expiration. The ITC is not a subsidy by the way. Its a tax credit applied against tax due on the federal side and its 30% of the total project cost. It will go to 10% in 2017. Here is what is going to happen. These new modules will be available in volume in 2018. SolarCity will then go back to its installed base and offer to upgrade the modules to interested parties. Provide more power to those who need or want it and potentially increasing the PPA price as well. They will take the old modules and resell them to community solar projects at .20 per watt. SC has to wait for these legacy residential and commercial installs to be in the ground for a minimum of 6 years in order to avoid a clawback on the ITC but after that they are free to negotiate anything they want. Welcome to the world of the i-module.

Bill

Reading a lot of comments about solar versus gas. It’s all going to be old news and investments lost when the first LFTR starts up.

Bill Fortune

Please expand on LFTR so I and others will know what you are referring to.

Claim: thorium reactors do not produce plutonium, and so create little or no proliferation hazard.
Response: thorium reactors do not produce plutonium. But an LFTR could (by including 238U in the fuel) be adapted to produce plutonium of a high purity well above normal weapons-grade, presenting a major proliferation hazard. Beyond that, the main proliferation hazards arise from:

 the need for fissile material (plutonium or uranium) to initiate the thorium fuel cycle, which could be diverted, and

 the production of fissile uranium 233U.

Claim: the fissile uranium (233U) produced by thorium reactors is not “weaponisable” owing to the presence of highly radiotoxic 232U as a contaminant. Response: 233U was successfully used in a 1955 bomb test in the Nevada Desert under the USA’s Operation Teapot and so is clearly weaponisable notwithstanding

any 232U present. Moreover, the continuous pyro-processing / electro-refining technologies intrinsic to MSRs / LFTRs could generate streams of 233U very low in 232U at a purity well above weapons grade as currently defined…..” :(

again we come back to the “remember the transuranic elements cant be used where there is life” ;)

Then why do they claim that using plutonium with thorium will make the plutonium unusable for weapons? And as I read it, Transatomic Power’s reactor won’t produce weapon grade materials. If the above is factual pleas help spread my letter:

Our study reveals that economically viable alternatives are
readily available that preclude the necessity for burning trash or fossil fuels to make electricity and therefore limits on emissions can be very stringent. Maybe emissions restrictions imposed by the EPA are the best way to encourage alternatives.

The best alternative is nuclear. And even better is the MIT
students’ Molten Salt Reactor. Transatomic Power Inc. has been established to build one. The Transatomic reactor design proposes to use spent nuclear fuel and is more than 90 efficient whereas existing reactors are only about 3 % efficient. Plutonium can be used and altered to prevent it from being used for nuclear weapons. We should not need to expound on the benefits to the United States
and the World.
I contend that this reactor could be built, tested and
placed into service very quickly. Congress needs to allow another Admiral Hyman Rickover type to “get the job done”, while requiring that the Nuclear Reg. Comm. not be allowed “to study” the design for the next 50 years, if at all..
The money and mandate to “get the job done” needs to expire within 3 years. If the test reactor is completed and made operational the employees get twice their salary, otherwise they are eligible for replacement. And the mandate and money is again issued to start another cycle of development.
Another economically viable and eco-friendly alternative is
readily available that uses gasification to convert municipal solid waste (MSW) and even coal into synthetic products while using the waste heat to generate electricity. These plants are being built in Europe and other so-called
“undeveloped” nations. I contend that when emissions restrictions become stringent enough this technology will alsobe used in this country.
I contend that the Greens are part of the problem because
they refuse to participate in solutions.
William E. Fortune
for Industrial Consultants Inc.
and NHcleanenergy.com
Dated: June 12, 2015 Lee,
NH 03861 603 365 0251

xcore

“Then why do they claim that using plutonium with thorium will make the plutonium unusable for weapons?”

they do it for financial gain profits etc within the short term, without a care for the future when they will be dead as per usual… and so ignore the proven large negatives of such as a potential massive plutonium and the other transuranic elements fuel conversion proliferation to the wrong states such as giving Iran,Pakistan etc liquid fluoride thorium reactors to convert the fuel the us give them etc …

Response: LFTRs are theoretically capable of a high fuel burn-up rate, but while this may indeed reduce the volume of waste, the waste is more radioactive due to the higher volume of radioactive fission products. The continuous fuel reprocessing that is characteristic of LFTRs will also produce hazardous chemical and radioactive waste streams, and releases to the environment will be unavoidable.

Response: This claim, although made in the report from the House of Lords, has no basis in fact. High-level waste is an unavoidable product of nuclear fission. Spent fuel from any LFTR will be intensely radioactive and constitute high level waste. The reactor itself, at the end of its lifetime, will constitute high level waste.

Claim: the waste from LFTRs contains very few long-lived isotopes, in particular transuranic actinides such as plutonium.

Response: the thorium fuel cycle does indeed produce very low volumes of plutonium and other long-lived actinides so long as only thorium and 233U are used as fuel. However, the waste contains many radioactive fission products and will remain dangerous for many hundreds of years. A particular hazard is the production of 232U, with its highly radio-toxic decay chain.

Claim: LFTRs can ‘burn up’ high level waste from conventional nuclear reactors, and stockpiles of plutonium.
Response: if LFTRs are used to ‘burn up’ waste from conventional reactors, their fuel now comprises 238U, 235U, 239Pu, 240Pu and other actinides. Operated in this way, what is now a mixed-fuel molten salt reactor will breed plutonium (from 238U) and other long lived actinides, perpetuating the plutonium cycle.

3.7 Cost of electricity

Claim: the design of LFTRs tends towards low construction cost and very cheap electricity.
Response: while some elements of LFTR design may cut costs compared to conventional reactors, other elements will add cost, notably the continuous fuel reprocessing using high-temperature ‘pyro-processing’ technologies. Moreover, a costly experimental phase of ~20-40 years duration will be required before any ‘production’ LFTR reactors can be built.

It is very hard to predict the cost of the technology that finally emerges, but the economics of nuclear fuel reprocessing to date suggests that the nuclear fuel produced from breeder reactors is about 50 times more expensive than ‘virgin’ fuel. It therefore appears probable that any electricity produced from LFTRs will be expensive.

We must also consider the prospect that relatively novel or immature energy sources, such as photovoltaic electricity and photo-evolved hydrogen, will have become well established as low-cost technologies long before LFTRs are in the market.

3.8 Timescale

Claim: Thorium and the LFTR offer a solution to current and medium-term energy supply deficits.
Response: The thorium fuel cycle is immature. Estimates from the UK’s National Nuclear Laboratory and the Chinese Academy of Sciences (see 4.2 below) suggest that 10-15 years of research will be needed before thorium fuels are ready to be deployed in existing reactor designs. Production LFTRs will not be deployable on any significant scale for 40-70 years.”

Bill

Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors. there’s some pretty interesting info to be found on youtube.

Solar is surely the clean solution to our energy problems. The main problem is vested interests of the dying, dirty, low-tech petroleum industry, who lobby against the high-tech solar industry. Germany, and SolarCity in the USA, are showing the way forward in this respect. There are proposals for massive solar plants in North African deserts that would desalinate water and also supply power that can be exported to Europe. The efficiency of solar PV (photovoltaic rather than thermal solar) is increasing and the price dropping. Solar is the future. Carbon-based fuels are leading to disastrous climate change. Nuclear is unpopular because of the historical accidents. Would you rather have a nuclear power station, coal-fired station, wind turbines, or solar plant near your house?

I’m mostly with you, but large scale solar and wind installs are also an eyesore, and not exactly friendly to the surrounding environment, so if there was (is?) a really safe way to do nuclear, I might personally prefer having that nearby (depending on its footprint).

Bill Fortune

David Cardina;l need to go back to the beginning and read more comments. The nuclear that you know is not the nuclear that is being developed. Read about Transatomic Power Inc/MIT and then get the word out so everyone will see it.

Bill Fortune

You and David Cardinal need to go back to the beginning and read more comments. The nuclear that you know is not the nuclear that is being developed. Read about Transatomic Power Inc/MIT and then get the word out so everyone will see it.

Dave

Meh. We have hydroelectric dams here in central WA. Less than .03 per kWh. Water and gravity is pretty renewable and cheap. Shh..don’t tell anyone.

powerwiz

Yawn. Wake me when its the .12 cents per KW I pay in Texas then I will be interested. Till then I will continue to bask in the gas power plant my city gets power in.

Bryan

Time to wakeup because the rate from a purchased system in Texas (not a leased system) has reached less than 7 cents per kWh.You can find 7 cents per kWh all over the internet.

powerwiz

Still not anywhere close to Solar costs and I live in the middle of nowhere so time for your parasitic self to wake up.

Lasse Maltensson

Hoep that is teh real price in the end as well… ad that they have a good mounting solution

alexmcyd

I am still looking for the return on investment for solar. If you want to sell to me, show me why it will benefit me personally. If it needs replacement before it has paid for itself, you can put it in the “nice conceptually” bin.

Bob

industry pays 7 cents …

Talesin

Elon Musk = government subsidies to keep business competitive.

moonpie

I own a Solar GTI system – so I’m pro solar. However the prices per watt for panels is so unrealistic in many of these stories. It is still very difficult to find panels at $1 a watt – and they aren’t SC panels. While you can find them, it is limited and you must buy a pallet for that price. Claiming $.55 in a year or so is unbelievable to me.

There is nothing in this or several other articles I read on this that explains how the price will drop so dramatically. Hey if I’m proven wrong, more power to them.

The focus is always on PV panels. At $1 per watt now the cheapest panels not not near the largest cost for a medium sized system.
At $1 a watt a 3kw system panel coast would only be $3,000. A good inverter would be $3000-$4000. Brackets and wiring maybe $400.
That’s about $7000.
Now you call SolarCity for this install and they will charge you another $7000-$10,000. Way too much.
I DIYed my 2kw system. I hired an electrician to connect the inverter etc for $700. Nothing was hard to do. I forgot to add a few fees that I had to pay too – city and utility.
So DIY – $8,000,
Some company doing the install is more like $15,000-$18,000 or more.

The Shambolic Skeptic

Solar / wind remain more expensive than conventional power.

Jason Guffey

Being in Indiana and using as much energy as my household does I would need a 7kW system, that’s 3800 for just the panels. After installation, inverter, battery, and other system pieces the cost would be over 10k. My usual bill is 150 a month or 1800 a year, it would take me 6 years to break even assuming I send nothing back to the grid(I likely will in the summer) but that is also assuming I need zero repairs.
Current 7kW DIY systems are 11.7k w/o battery so this is definitely progress.

I’ll take the Silevo product more seriously once some field or lab tests show how well they hold up. Efficiency and cost per watt mean zilch if it degrades like most panels in the industry.

mike schwarzer

I need 800+ panels of the new stuff for offshore. Where do I get those?

fhgh

There are no competition on the solar panel market today the Chinese
are not allowed to sell panels under 0,56 Euro/Watt
there are laws and regulations that keeping the prices up
I have talked to some chines seller they can go as low as 0,4 Euro/Watt
on solar panels but they are not allowed to

Tahir Ayub ALvi

I think this is not the issue of any specific country. its planet issue. we should invest for future to control planet issues that are created buy us. and efficient renewable energy resources like SOLAR PANEL can play important role.

Bryan

They’re not going to sell their solar modules to you for $0.55 cents per Watt. Try tripling that amount, And at $0.55 cents per Watt their cost is high.

This site may earn affiliate commissions from the links on this page. Terms of use.

ExtremeTech Newsletter

Subscribe Today to get the latest ExtremeTech news delivered right to your inbox.